Devin nunes’s family farm is hiding a politically explosive secret (1 Viewer)

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

Pretty long investigative piece about the Nunes family's dairy farm. The secrets are really two:

1) The California family farm was moved to Iowa, in Rep. Steve King's district, years ago. For some reason, Nunes wants that kept secret and has gone to considerable lengths to keep it so. The reporter was trailed for days by members of Nunes' family, wouldn't talk to him, threatened to have him arrested. After the reporter left, the Nunes family had the local dairy magazine pull from the internet a 2009 article that talked about the Nunes farm, and that presumably was the tip this reporter was following up on.

2) The little town is mainly dairy farmers, and the vast majority (perhaps 90% or more) of the labor is illegal immigrants. AND the county went roughly 80-20 Trump. Rep. Steve "Calves the size of cantaloupes" King won the district by a similar margin.

Other dairy farmers in the area helped me understand why the Nunes family might be so secretive about the farm: Midwestern dairies tend to run on undocumented labor. The northwest-Iowa dairy community is small. Most of the farmers know one another, and most belong to a regional trade group called the Western Iowa Dairy Alliance (though WIDA told me NuStar is not a member). One dairy farmer said that the threat of raids from ICE is so acute that WIDA members have discussed forming a NATO-like pact that would treat a raid on one dairy as a raid on all of them. The other pact members would provide labor to the raided dairy until it got back on its feet.

In every conversation I had with dairy farmers and industry insiders in northwest Iowa, it was taken as a fact that the local dairies are wholly dependent on undocumented labor.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit torn on this. My first reaction is to hell with these Trump supporters, I hope they get raided, shut down and bankrupted, because they're only getting the consequences of policies the guys (King and Trump) they supported promised and are a big part of their appeal. If these morons support politicians that will happily destroy their livelihoods, then let it happen, f*** them, and maybe they'll support politicians who won't or demand the Republicans they do support change their policy preferences. In the meantime, we have the equivalent of "sanctuary cities" right there in Rep. King's district and no one seems to notice or care because they're salt of the earth white farmers.

But I don't have anything against these families. I know they work hard - dairy farming is tough, long hours, relentless, no vacations, and if they're shut down that means the immigrant families are arrested and sent home. Seems unfair to wish harm on all those people who are all just trying to get by in a tough business. If these families didn't overwhelmingly support Trump and the GOP, I'd say let them alone. But it's hard when Nunes own family is in this district and were active in his campaigns.

More than anything, it's just frustrating that this little community OVERWHELMINGLY voted for people who would ruin them, bankrupt them, if the people they put in office ever get around to enforcing the policies they PROMISED in this little town.

JasperL said:

More than anything, it's just frustrating that this little community OVERWHELMINGLY voted for people who would ruin them, bankrupt them, if the people they put in office ever get around to enforcing the policies they PROMISED in this little town.

Click to expand...

But Hillary's emails, THAT was what was important to them. So they get what they get as far as I'm concerned and maybe, just maybe when they are raided and bankrupt they will have learned their lesson.

Off-Topic:

• 
  [*=1]"Dairy farming is tough" --> Owning, running, growing and making profitable any business -- be it dairy farming, designing goods and services, dentistry, ditch digging or derivatives development, or anything else -- is tough.
  [*=1]"Long hours" --> Who that's successful, or who has a decently remunerative career, doesn't work long hours? Nobody.
  [*=1]"Relentless" --> What's not relentless about the onslaught of exigencies and obligations one faces operating any firm?
  [*=1]"No vacations" --> Well, whose fault is that?
  • 
    [*=1]One chose to pursue a career that sells the produce of live creatures that require a lot of attention; thus to get a vacation, on must grow the business to the point one has employees who can "hold down the fort" for a couple weeks while one is away.
    [*=1]One is not required to remain in the dairy farming business. If one cannot grow one's business as above described, one can either "get over" the dearth of vacationing time/ability or one can exit the industry and do something else. What one chooses to do is a matter of priorities. (Economically, one can conceptualize the choice in terms of elasticity of demand or in terms of opportunity cost.)

That was an interesting article.

Not surprised by it but it was interesting.
Everyone knows this is going on. There is and will continue to be selective enforcement.
Trump and his minions will not go after their districts.

Xelor said:

Off-Topic:

The sentence above is characteristic of the rhetoric, thus mindset, I think is both too prevalent and utter BS.
​

• 
  [*=1]"Dairy farming is tough" --> Owning, running, growing and making profitable any business -- be it dairy farming, designing goods and services, dentistry, ditch digging or derivatives development, or anything else -- is tough.
  [*=1]"Long hours" --> Who that's successful, or who has a decently remunerative career, doesn't work long hours? Nobody.
  [*=1]"Relentless" --> What's not relentless about the onslaught of exigencies and obligations one faces operating any firm?
  [*=1]"No vacations" --> Well, whose fault is that?
  • 
    [*=1]One chose to pursue a career that sells the produce of live creatures that require a lot of attention; thus to get a vacation, on must grow the business to the point one has employees who can "hold down the fort" for a couple weeks while one is away.
    [*=1]One is not required to remain in the dairy farming business. If one cannot grow one's business as above described, one can either "get over" the dearth of vacationing time/ability or one can exit the industry and do something else. What one chooses to do is a matter of priorities. (Economically, one can conceptualize the choice in terms of elasticity of demand or in terms of opportunity cost.)

The "pity party" implied by remarks like "so and so works hard" is not even worth mentioning in a setting (discursive context) such as this one. Just about everybody who works, works hard, most especially successful business owners. Even Devin Nunes, though he works to accomplish things I had rather he didn't, works hard. Were it so that successful business owners, dairy farmers and all the rest, don't work hard, it'd be worth saying dairy farmers work hard. Since, however, that isn't the case, and since dairy farming and every other business is about making money -- maximizing profit and minimizing risks -- such lines are but yanks on readers' emotions, and that just falls flat for me re: matters of business and economics.​

Click to expand...

OK, I don't really have any idea why you're offended, but whatever I guess.

My main point is I have nothing against these people, don't believe they're evil, and so don't wish them any ill will. Should I wish them ill will because everyone works hard? Doesn't make sense. I also wish no ill will to HARD WORKING!!!! owners of local construction companies who hire illegals because they are dependable, reliable workers. What does that do when to wish them ill will means an ICE raid and the families there get rooted up and deported, and I ALSO don't have any ill will against HARD WORKING!!!! immigrants who are like those business owners just trying to make a go of life as best they can.

JasperL said:

OK, I don't really have any idea why you're offended, but whatever I guess.

My main point is I have nothing against these people, don't believe they're evil, and so don't wish them any ill will. Should I wish them ill will because everyone works hard? Doesn't make sense. I also wish no ill will to HARD WORKING!!!! owners of local construction companies who hire illegals because they are dependable, reliable workers. What does that do when to wish them ill will means an ICE raid and the families there get rooted up and deported, and I ALSO don't have any ill will against HARD WORKING!!!! immigrants who are like those business owners just trying to make a go of life as best they can.

Click to expand...

And it's a joke to compare livestock farming with dentistry in terms of labor and hard work. A dentist can cancel appointments. Animals need to be milked/fed/cleaned every single day. Farmers work when they're sick. It's irresponsible for a dentist to do so. The list can go on and on.

And yet, does my description negatively showcase dentists? No. They just have different skills and daily regimens.

It's the obtuse generalization that I was discussing.

JasperL said:

OK, I don't really have any idea why you're offended, but whatever I guess.

My main point is I have nothing against these people, don't believe they're evil, and so don't wish them any ill will. Should I wish them ill will because everyone works hard? Doesn't make sense. I also wish no ill will to HARD WORKING!!!! owners of local construction companies who hire illegals because they are dependable, reliable workers. What does that do when to wish them ill will means an ICE raid and the families there get rooted up and deported, and I ALSO don't have any ill will against HARD WORKING!!!! immigrants who are like those business owners just trying to make a go of life as best they can.

Click to expand...

My remarks, all of which I shared under the heading "off-topic" because I know they don't address the substance of your OP's points, had to do with the rhetorically exculpatory tone of specific diction to which I referred. I was very clear about that from the outset of my remarks, writing, "characteristic of the rhetoric" and I concluded my post by identifying the thematic nature of the rhetoric, writing, "pity party" and "such lines are but yanks on readers' emotions."

I understand why you don't know why I'm "offended;" you wrote nothing offensive. Because you wrote nothing offensive, umbrage isn't what I felt in response to your remarks, nor is umbrage the emotion I expressed in my comments about the rhetorical tone on which I remarked.

Why did you, from the fact of my having an objecting to an element of your rhetorical tone, infer that I took umbrage from it? I assure you, the scope of my emotional capacity transcends the binariness of umbrage and exaltation. My remarks had to do with my feeling neither emotion or any resembling them. I find "pity party" rhetoric detestable not offensive. I abhor such rhetoric because it personalizes, thus politicizes, that which can be analyzed and acted on without regard to politics.


Red:
I can want to see a number of actions and outcomes occur, know those things may or do not bode existentially well for another, and concurrently have no vindictive thoughts toward that person.

To wit, one of my closest friends on the planet went to rival schools. When our schools competed in sports, I rooted for my school, not his. One time, I faced off against him in extemp. Do you think I held back because he was a dear friend? He wasn't offended I did my best, nor was I offended he did so too. He and I competed in accordance with the rules. Had either of us cheated, the other would have called him out and forced him to default.


Blue (and continuing from "red"):
Those farmers and their illegal workers violate our laws. Would I fine/indict the farmers? Yes. Would I deport the workers? Yes. Would my doing so be a reflection of ill will? No.

It's true I oppose government undertaking to hunt for illegals, but I have no problem with the government deporting illegals whom they happen upon. Why? Because as Borjas' analysis has shown that illegal immigrants yield a net gain, not a net loss, to the economy. There's no economically sound argument for focusing economic resources toward ending a so-called problem, the existence of which increases one's economic fortunes. If in the course of spending whatever one must necessarily spend, one finds illegal immigrants, yes, deport them and fine/indict their employers.

By the same token, being an illegal and hiring an illegal is unlawful. So while I wouldn't allocate additional resources to hunting for illegals and their employers, if the Moirae bring to immigration enforcement's attention that scores of illegals are in fact working for scores of businesses in one industry in a given location, yes, I'd send immigration officers to the location to enforce the law.

Assuming Iowan dairy farming uses illegal labor as much as you've suggested, how hard/costly can it be to find illegals and their employers? All one need do is go there, and ask for employment records and then cross them with the DHS (customs and immigration), IRS and SSN databases. This is the 21st century. ICE investigators no longer sort through mounds of paper. They put the names and identification info into a file, write a simple database query (and I do mean simple; it's something a high schooler can do) referencing the file data, and, literally minutes later, communicate the relevant information to the agents on-site, who, in turn, take the relevant actions: deportation arrests and fine issuance.

So tying that with my remarks about the exculpatory tone, does any of what I wrote in this "blue" section have anything to do with emotions or whether the farmers or workers work hard, have no vacation, or in some other way invoke an emotional dilemma that really need not be invoked? No.

Xelor said:

I was very clear about that from the outset of my remarks, writing, "characteristic of the rhetoric" and I concluded my post by identifying the thematic nature of the rhetoric, writing, "pity party" and "such lines are but yanks on readers' emotions."
...
I find "pity party" rhetoric detestable not offensive. I abhor such rhetoric because it personalizes, thus politicizes, that which can be analyzed and acted on without regard to politics.

Click to expand...

It wasn't "pity party" rhetoric, though. It was speaking of the realities of dairy farming.

But if the rhetoric is a 'yank on readers' emotions' so be it. So is human empathy of any kind and I'm not embarrassed or ashamed in any way to feel empathy, and have my opinions affected by respect for another's plight and point of view. That's to be HUMAN. Politics is human, involves other people, their, wants, dreams, families, etc. When I quit caring about the effect of a given policy on others is when I cease to be someone with a moral compass.

Red:
I can want to see a number of actions and outcomes occur, know those things may or do not bode existentially well for another, and concurrently have no vindictive thoughts toward that person.

To wit, one of my closest friends on the planet went to rival schools. When our schools competed in sports.....

Click to expand...

It's a terrible analogy. Your friend would have lost a game. What if losing meant his family lost their home and farm and 17 others lost their jobs, and what you gain is bragging rights? That's a closer analogy.

Blue (and continuing from "red"):
Those farmers and their illegal workers violate our laws. Would I fine/indict the farmers? Yes. Would I deport the workers? Yes. Would my doing so be a reflection of ill will? No.

It's true I oppose government undertaking to hunt for illegals, but I have no problem with the government deporting illegals whom they happen upon. Why? Because as Borjas' analysis has shown that illegal immigrants yield a net gain, not a net loss, to the economy. There's no economically sound argument for focusing economic resources toward ending a so-called problem, the existence of which increases one's economic fortunes. If in the course of spending whatever one must necessarily spend, one finds illegal immigrants, yes, deport them and fine/indict their employers.

Click to expand...

I find that position pretty gutless because it blesses the arbitrary or selective enforcement of our laws. If the difference between a bankrupt farm, and a jail term versus no penalty at all, is whether or not you or one of your employees somehow accidentally comes into contact with (happen upon) an LEO, who then decides to investigate then enforce a law, then we're not really operating at all under a uniform system of laws at all. It's a form of tyranny.

What does it take for ICE not to "happen upon" Nunes' farm in Iowa? One thing that helps a bunch is being a powerful member of Congress and a big supporter of the President. In the local setting, the cops may know that a country club hosts a weekly cocaine fueled high stakes poker night but never 'happen upon' that game in progress, while targeting (deliberately 'happening upon) a craps game in a poor black neighborhood where the participants smoke pot, use drug sniffing dogs at the local HS Friday night football game, but leave the dogs at home for the local prep school attended by the sons and daughters of the elites. Etc.

By the same token, being an illegal and hiring an illegal is unlawful. So while I wouldn't allocate additional resources to hunting for illegals and their employers, if the Moirae bring to immigration enforcement's attention that scores of illegals are in fact working for scores of businesses in one industry in a given location, yes, I'd send immigration officers to the location to enforce the law.

[snipped for brevity]

So tying that with my remarks about the exculpatory tone, does any of what I wrote in this "blue" section have anything to do with emotions or whether the farmers or workers work hard, have no vacation, or in some other way invoke an emotional dilemma that really need not be invoked? No.

Click to expand...

Is there an emotional dilemma in arbitrarily/selectively enforcing an otherwise correctly (in your view) widely ignored law against hiring illegals and them being in this country, when doing so will ruin the lives of otherwise decent people, the farmer and his employees, just trying to work for their wages, survive, raise a family as best they can, and not harming others? OF COURSE there is a moral dilemma there.

JasperL said:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

Pretty long investigative piece about the Nunes family's dairy farm. The secrets are really two:

1) The California family farm was moved to Iowa, in Rep. Steve King's district, years ago. For some reason, Nunes wants that kept secret and has gone to considerable lengths to keep it so. The reporter was trailed for days by members of Nunes' family, wouldn't talk to him, threatened to have him arrested. After the reporter left, the Nunes family had the local dairy magazine pull from the internet a 2009 article that talked about the Nunes farm, and that presumably was the tip this reporter was following up on.

2) The little town is mainly dairy farmers, and the vast majority (perhaps 90% or more) of the labor is illegal immigrants. AND the county went roughly 80-20 Trump. Rep. Steve "Calves the size of cantaloupes" King won the district by a similar margin.



I'm a bit torn on this. My first reaction is to hell with these Trump supporters, I hope they get raided, shut down and bankrupted, because they're only getting the consequences of policies the guys (King and Trump) they supported promised and are a big part of their appeal. If these morons support politicians that will happily destroy their livelihoods, then let it happen, f*** them, and maybe they'll support politicians who won't or demand the Republicans they do support change their policy preferences. In the meantime, we have the equivalent of "sanctuary cities" right there in Rep. King's district and no one seems to notice or care because they're salt of the earth white farmers.

But I don't have anything against these families. I know they work hard - dairy farming is tough, long hours, relentless, no vacations, and if they're shut down that means the immigrant families are arrested and sent home. Seems unfair to wish harm on all those people who are all just trying to get by in a tough business. If these families didn't overwhelmingly support Trump and the GOP, I'd say let them alone. But it's hard when Nunes own family is in this district and were active in his campaigns.

More than anything, it's just frustrating that this little community OVERWHELMINGLY voted for people who would ruin them, bankrupt them, if the people they put in office ever get around to enforcing the policies they PROMISED in this little town.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is the FAR MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY CLIMATE in Iowa...ya think, maybe?

Grokmaster said:

Perhaps it is the FAR MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY CLIMATE in Iowa...ya think, maybe?

Click to expand...

The far more business friendly climate means Nunes' family doesn't have to worry about ICE raids? Can you explain?

And why would Nunes be shy about his farm moving to Iowa for the better business climate. He's a conservative - why not use his farm and why they moved as a lesson in why California needs to cut regulations?

JasperL said:

It's a terrible analogy. Your friend would have lost a game. What if losing meant his family lost their home and farm and 17 others lost their jobs, and what you gain is bragging rights? That's a closer analogy.

Click to expand...

If by entering the competition, my friend risked losing his family's home and farm and 17 others' jobs, and that was outside the range of risk my friend didn't care to assume, he shouldn't have entered the competition insofar as competing in that particular event is optional.

Applying that to the matter of the dairy farmers and the illegals who work for them, the law prohibiting the engagement of illegals has long been on the books and known. The farmers and the illegals nonetheless took the risk of engaging in illegal activity. If they get caught, they get caught, and the risks they took materializes into reality. If part of that reality entails the loss of their business, or for the illegals, deportation, well, so be it.

• It's not as though it was a secret that those were the things that were on the line as a result of taking the noted risks.
• Nobody forces one to be a dairy farmer.
• Nobody forces one to be an illegal immigrant (border crosser, visa violator, or visa overstayer).

Quite simply, I have no sympathy for folks who happen to get caught violating the law. The most I'll do is evaluate the economics of going out of the way to enforce a given law, and if the economics warrant enforcing a law serendipitously, and that works out to one's advantage, well, that is what it is.

JasperL said:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

Pretty long investigative piece about the Nunes family's dairy farm. The secrets are really two:

1) The California family farm was moved to Iowa, in Rep. Steve King's district, years ago. For some reason, Nunes wants that kept secret and has gone to considerable lengths to keep it so. The reporter was trailed for days by members of Nunes' family, wouldn't talk to him, threatened to have him arrested. After the reporter left, the Nunes family had the local dairy magazine pull from the internet a 2009 article that talked about the Nunes farm, and that presumably was the tip this reporter was following up on.

2) The little town is mainly dairy farmers, and the vast majority (perhaps 90% or more) of the labor is illegal immigrants. AND the county went roughly 80-20 Trump. Rep. Steve "Calves the size of cantaloupes" King won the district by a similar margin.



I'm a bit torn on this. My first reaction is to hell with these Trump supporters, I hope they get raided, shut down and bankrupted, because they're only getting the consequences of policies the guys (King and Trump) they supported promised and are a big part of their appeal. If these morons support politicians that will happily destroy their livelihoods, then let it happen, f*** them, and maybe they'll support politicians who won't or demand the Republicans they do support change their policy preferences. In the meantime, we have the equivalent of "sanctuary cities" right there in Rep. King's district and no one seems to notice or care because they're salt of the earth white farmers.

But I don't have anything against these families. I know they work hard - dairy farming is tough, long hours, relentless, no vacations, and if they're shut down that means the immigrant families are arrested and sent home. Seems unfair to wish harm on all those people who are all just trying to get by in a tough business. If these families didn't overwhelmingly support Trump and the GOP, I'd say let them alone. But it's hard when Nunes own family is in this district and were active in his campaigns.

More than anything, it's just frustrating that this little community OVERWHELMINGLY voted for people who would ruin them, bankrupt them, if the people they put in office ever get around to enforcing the policies they PROMISED in this little town.

Click to expand...

Figures.

JasperL said:

I find that position pretty gutless because it blesses the arbitrary or selective enforcement of our laws. If the difference between a bankrupt farm, and a jail term versus no penalty at all, is whether or not you or one of your employees somehow accidentally comes into contact with (happen upon) an LEO, who then decides to investigate then enforce a law, then we're not really operating at all under a uniform system of laws at all. It's a form of tyranny.

What does it take for ICE not to "happen upon" Nunes' farm in Iowa? One thing that helps a bunch is being a powerful member of Congress and a big supporter of the President. In the local setting, the cops may know that a country club hosts a weekly cocaine fueled high stakes poker night but never 'happen upon' that game in progress, while targeting (deliberately 'happening upon) a craps game in a poor black neighborhood where the participants smoke pot, use drug sniffing dogs at the local HS Friday night football game, but leave the dogs at home for the local prep school attended by the sons and daughters of the elites. Etc.

Click to expand...

Red:
If ICE knows Nunes is likely employing illegals, ICE should go to his farm, fine him, round up the illegals and deport them. Whatever consequences that has on his farm are what they are.

Blue:
I think you misunderstand me. The serendipity to which I refer is that of knowledge and awareness of specific criminal activity coming to LEO's attention, not serendipitous -- or more aptly, given the scenario you provided, capricious -- enforcement. In the "country club" example you've used, I'd say if the cops know or are told the "cocaine fest" weekly occurs, the cops should take their asses out there and arrest the participants.

Xelor said:

If by entering the competition, my friend risked losing his family's home and farm and 17 others' jobs, and that was outside the range of risk my friend didn't care to assume, he shouldn't have entered the competition insofar as competing in that particular event is optional.

Click to expand...

OK and if you're be willing to cause your friend to lose all he has in exchange for your bragging rights, then I don't actually respect that viewpoint.

Applying that to the matter of the dairy farmers and the illegals who work for them, the law prohibiting the engagement of illegals has long been on the books and known. The farmers and the illegals nonetheless took the risk of engaging in illegal activity. If they get caught, they get caught, and the risks they took materializes into reality. If part of that reality entails the loss of their business, or for the illegals, deportation, well, so be it.

• It's not as though it was a secret that those were the things that were on the line as a result of taking the noted risks.
• Nobody forces one to be a dairy farmer.
• Nobody forces one to be an illegal immigrant (border crosser, visa violator, or visa overstayer).

Quite simply, I have no sympathy for folks who happen to get caught violating the law. The most I'll do is evaluate the economics of going out of the way to enforce a given law, and if the economics warrant enforcing a law serendipitously, and that works out to one's advantage, well, that is what it is.

Click to expand...

So the law is the law, and if the enforcing of it is arbitrary, and catastrophic for those randomly snagged, so be it because it's the law? I think that's a fair summary. Don't the merits of the law enter into this equation somewhere? If there are DISadvantages to enforcing it - as you suggest - then how can one be indifferent to the incredible human suffering, with no upside, of doing so rarely and arbitrarily?

And of course a law randomly and arbitrarily enforced, and also widely ignored, is an effective tool of tyranny, corruption, and oppression of all sorts. Cross the local mayor, back the wrong guy for sheriff, get crossways with the President or a powerful member of Congress, and a call to ICE can bankrupt you and send you to jail. If the law isn't evenly enforced against your competitors and neighbors, it's a DESCRIPTION of a corrupt system at least if not outright tyranny - a government of men, not laws.

So did they find any evidence of Nunes's family using illegal farm workers or is this more made up bs because someone, somewhere did it?

And by the way, if Nunes's family DID use illegal workers, I'm all for prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.


But until you show me one credible piece of proof, quit wasting my time.

Xelor said:

Red:
If ICE knows Nunes is likely employing illegals, ICE should go to his farm, fine him, round up the illegals and deport them. Whatever consequences that has on his farm are what they are.

Click to expand...

I simply don't agree, unless immigration laws are evenly enforced against all farmers in that area, and in that state and in other states, so that we actually have a system of laws. If the law being enforced will bankrupt Nunes' farm, then all such farms using illegals should be so bankrupted - that's what having a system of laws means - we play on a level playing field.

Blue:
I think you misunderstand me. The serendipity to which I refer is that of knowledge and awareness of specific criminal activity coming to LEO's attention, not serendipitous -- or more aptly, given the scenario you provided, capricious -- enforcement. In the "country club" example you've used, I'd say if the cops know or are told the "cocaine fest" weekly occurs, the cops should take their asses out there and arrest the participants.

Click to expand...

Of course they 'should' but only someone not a resident in this reality believes they will or do. That's the perk of having arbitrarily or selectively enforced laws - to reward your friends and destroy your enemies.

So I did actually understand your point, but your clarification isn't an improvement in your position. Someone in LEO might 'happen upon' an illegal worker who was beaten or robbed, or his wife or daughter raped. Does it sound like a just law enforcement regime that would punish that worker and if the LEO asked where he worked, the business owner, because the worker or his family was a victim of a terrible crime? To me it's an obscene regime.

Or they might 'happen upon' the presence of illegal labor because a political foe of Nunes has a local contact, finds out that Nunes' family employs a crew of illegals, and sends in an anonymous tip for political payback. It's how corrupt tin pot dictatorships have operated for all of time. Of course in real life, ICE might disregard that tip as unreliable because Nunes is powerful, in the majority, and has the support of their boss, POTUS. You have to believe in unicorns to believe such an arbitrary system will nevertheless be EQUITABLY enforced. It's an absurd expectation, contrary to all of human recorded history.

dobieg said:

So did they find any evidence of Nunes's family using illegal farm workers or is this more made up bs because someone, somewhere did it?

Click to expand...

Well, no, not someone somewhere, but all the other farms competing in the same business at the same milk prices are using illegals.

dobieg said:

And by the way, if Nunes's family DID use illegal workers, I'm all for prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

But until you show me one credible piece of proof, quit wasting my time.

Click to expand...

The credible piece of proof is the story. Why do you think the Nunes family tailed the reporter, refused to talk to them, had the local dairy magazine remove the article referencing the Nunes family and their local farm? Because they had nothing to hide and are operating a perfectly legitimate business in a sea of other dairy farms who need illegal labor to survive?

JasperL said:

The credible piece of proof is the story. Why do you think the Nunes family tailed the reporter, refused to talk to them, had the local dairy magazine remove the article referencing the Nunes family and their local farm? Because they had nothing to hide and are operating a perfectly legitimate business in a sea of other dairy farms who need illegal labor to survive?

Click to expand...

Well then it should be quite easy for someone to come up with proof they're using illegals instead of just spreading rumors.



Again, if you come up with credible evidence, I'm on your side. Until then, I view this as just more political garbage.

JasperL said:

I simply don't agree, unless immigration laws are evenly enforced against all farmers in that area, and in that state and in other states, so that we actually have a system of laws. If the law being enforced will bankrupt Nunes' farm, then all such farms using illegals should be so bankrupted - that's what having a system of laws means - we play on a level playing field.



Of course they 'should' but only someone not a resident in this reality believes they will or do. That's the perk of having arbitrarily or selectively enforced laws - to reward your friends and destroy your enemies.

So I did actually understand your point, but your clarification isn't an improvement in your position. Someone in LEO might 'happen upon' an illegal worker who was beaten or robbed, or his wife or daughter raped. Does it sound like a just law enforcement regime that would punish that worker and if the LEO asked where he worked, the business owner, because the worker or his family was a victim of a terrible crime? To me it's an obscene regime.

Or they might 'happen upon' the presence of illegal labor because a political foe of Nunes has a local contact, finds out that Nunes' family employs a crew of illegals, and sends in an anonymous tip for political payback. It's how corrupt tin pot dictatorships have operated for all of time. Of course in real life, ICE might disregard that tip as unreliable because Nunes is powerful, in the majority, and has the support of their boss, POTUS. You have to believe in unicorns to believe such an arbitrary system will nevertheless be EQUITABLY enforced. It's an absurd expectation, contrary to all of human recorded history.

Click to expand...

Red:
What makes you think I'm advocating for anything other than enforcing the law across all the farmers in that area? If the cops have reason to believe the unlawful engagement of illegals is endemic, there's no reason to single out Nunes nor is there reason to allow his farm to elide scrutiny.

Blue:
Political foe or no political foe....Nunes either did or didn't violate the law and thereby put his business and its employees in legal jeopardy. Who the hell reports his or anyone else's ass, when existentially he (or other farmers) have violated the law, is of no matter.

Pink:
I think you do not at all understand my points. The entirety of my argument has focused dispassionately on economics and law. Why? Because first and foremost, I see this whole situation as a business matter and secondarily as a legal one. I never would advocate an uneconomic position. Neither would I advocate for anything other than the apolitical application of the law. What I here and always advocate for is that one (a person or firm) maximize economic profit (If you haven't formal training in economics, click that link and read the whole page. It's not long.) within the bounds of the law.

If one is of a mind to break the law, well, nobody forces one to do, but nobody will stop one either. That said, if/when the time comes that one is called to face the consequences of having violated the law, well, that's the time to pay the piper, as it were. If one was so concerned about the well being of one's employees, one shouldn't have put them at risk. If one's employees were so concerned about their own risk profile, they shouldn't have taken the risk.

Quite simply, I won't willfully assume any kind of burden for the consequences of someone else's risk taking. What happens to them as a consequence of their risk taking is entirely their burden to bear. That goes for the business owner and the employee.

JasperL said:

OK and if you're be willing to cause your friend to lose all he has in exchange for your bragging rights, then I don't actually respect that viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't, you just don't. I agree to differ with you on that.

JasperL said:

OK and if you're be willing to cause your friend to lose all he has in exchange for your bragging rights, then I don't actually respect that viewpoint.

Click to expand...

You seem insouciant to the fact that were he to win the competition, all he'd have got was, as you put it, bragging rights. His gambit to put literally his and others' "all" on winning was his choice. Nobody made him do that.

Remember, you introduced the notion of his "all" being on the line, a notion that didn't exist in my presentation of the competition, and you offered no alterations to the rest of the scenario.

• It was still a competition, the rules of which had to be known in advance to all competitors, and, presumably, by some conjuration of yours, there is some provision that allows one to voluntarily wager something on the chance of their winning the competition.
• You didn't indicate I wagered anything; thus as before your revision of the parameters, I still stood to gain bragging rights or lose a bit of personal pride.
• You didn't indicate the prize for winning entails anything other than bragging rights; thus that, along with his and others keeping the "all" they wagered, is all he could have won.

So what you did is set up a scenario that position him to win nothing more than anyone who risked nothing other than their pride, yet my friend could and did risk far more than that. And you assumed my friend would enter the competition taking such a risk. I assure you, no friend of mine would be so stupid as to even enter a competition having the terms of the one you've proposed. That said, friend or foe, if one against me entered such a competition as you proposed and lost to me, I would take from them that which they wagered. Poor choices/risk freely made/taken have consequences.

I happened across the 2009 article that was deleted:

dobieg said:

Well then it should be quite easy for someone to come up with proof they're using illegals instead of just spreading rumors.

Again, if you come up with credible evidence, I'm on your side. Until then, I view this as just more political garbage.

Click to expand...

Yeah, have some of Trump's ICE agents raid the place. We'll see if it happens.

Xelor said:

Red:
What makes you think I'm advocating for anything other than enforcing the law across all the farmers in that area? If the cops have reason to believe the unlawful engagement of illegals is endemic, there's no reason to single out Nunes nor is there reason to allow his farm to elide scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Well, they'll have to "happen upon" them according to you. Raiding all the farms in the area is not to "happen upon" illegals or their employers. Now you see how indefensible the position of yours is, so you're changing it. OK.

Blue:
Political foe or no political foe....Nunes either did or didn't violate the law and thereby put his business and its employees in legal jeopardy. Who the hell reports his or anyone else's ass, when existentially he (or other farmers) have violated the law, is of no matter.

E.g.:
If I am your foe and I know you've broken the law, so I report you, that you're my foe doesn't alter the fact of your violation and that you must therefore face the consequences of having done. My being your foe -- for any reason...I may just not like the way you look; politics need not have a damn thing to do with it -- is irrelevant; you had a preemptive solution from square one: don't violate the law. If you don't violate the law, you won't have to pay the piper for having done, regardless of the animus between us.

What'd you think I'm going to do? Expose myself to legal jeopardy by libelling/slandering you? What's the point in that? That'd force you and me both to spend even more resources to bring and defend the matter in court. That'd be uneconomic. "Penny wise and pound foolish," as some might say.
​

Pink:
I think you do not at all understand my points. The entirety of my argument has focused dispassionately on economics and law. Why? Because first and foremost, I see this whole situation as a business matter and secondarily as a legal one. I never would advocate an uneconomic position. Neither would I advocate for anything other than the apolitical application of the law. What I here and always advocate for is that one (a person or firm) maximize economic profit (If you haven't formal training in economics, click that link and read the whole page. It's not long.) within the bounds of the law.

If one is of a mind to break the law, well, nobody forces one to do, but nobody will stop one either. That said, if/when the time comes that one is called to face the consequences of having violated the law, well, that's the time to pay the piper, as it were. If one was so concerned about the well being of one's employees, one shouldn't have put them at risk. If one's employees were so concerned about their own risk profile, they shouldn't have taken the risk.

Quite simply, I won't willfully assume any kind of burden for the consequences of someone else's risk taking. What happens to them as a consequence of their risk taking is entirely their burden to bear. That goes for the business owner and the employee.

Click to expand...

OK, we just don't agree at all. You've apparently no concern for the human beings involved, and I do.